This Idaho Town Lets You Switch Between Cheap Fiber ISPs In A Matter Of Seconds

from the build-it-and-they-will-come dept

In 2009, the FCC funded a Harvard study that concluded (pdf) that open access policies (letting multiple ISPs come in and compete over a central, core network) resulted in lower broadband prices and better service. Of course when the Obama FCC released its flimsy, politically timid "National Broadband Plan" back in 2010, this realization (not to mention an honest accounting of the sector's limited competition) was nowhere to be found.

Since then, "open access" has become somewhat of a dirty word in US telecom, and even companies like Google Fiber -- which originally promised to adhere to the concept on its own network before quietly backpedaling -- are eager to pretend the idea doesn't exist. But building core infrastructure (sometimes with government's help, sometimes not), then forcing ISPs to come in and compete in layers remains a compelling idea America wants nothing to do with.

Well, most of America. Back in 2016, the city of Ammon, Idaho (population 16,500) decided to build an open access broadband network that let multiple private ISPs offer service to customers over city-owned fiber. The resulting competition has, several years later, resulted in (surprise), better, faster, and cheaper access to broadband. As a result, this city in Idaho now boasts better broadband infrastructure than most US "tech hubs" like San Francisco and Seattle, both of which have flirted with the idea but never followed through:

“If you were to ask me what the key component of Ammon is, I would say it’s a broadband infrastructure as a utility,” says Bruce Patterson, Ammon’s technology director and one of the key drivers behind the network. “We’ve just found a way to make it a true public infrastructure, like a road."

The city of Ammon manages the network the same way it handles water services or road maintenance. “If we could simply come to a point as a nation where we would say internet infrastructure is essential and we’re going to make sure that everybody has access to it,” Patterson says, “that would be a huge step forward.”

Through software virtualization, users on the network are allowed to switch ISPs with just a few clicks. Don't like prices or an ISP's privacy or net neutrality practices? You just switch. You can start to see why giants like AT&T and Comcast aren't particularly keen on this idea:

"By offering residents and businesses the option to own their own fiber, either paying up front (about $3,200) or $20 per month for 20 years, Ammon forces providers to compete for customers. There are eight local ISPs, and users can switch among them instantly without requiring a “truck roll” (a visit from the ISP to adapt hardware at the customer’s location), because Ammon uses software to “virtualize” the network.

To be clear community broadband isn't some mystical panacea where this will inevitably happen every time a community gets involved. These efforts are like any other business model, and require a solid plan and good people involved if they're going to succeed. The thing is, this is a decision that should be left up to towns and cities and their voters. Instead, we've let giants like AT&T and Comcast literally write the law in roughly 20 states banning your town or city from making up their own minds, preventing any exploration of creative alternatives to the status quo.

Huge swaths of the US government not only refuse to address the country's broadband competition issues; many insist there is no problem. Instead, they embrace mindlessly eliminating oversight of giants like Comcast under the false premise this somehow results in better service. When communities frustrated by terrible service then try to do something about it, they run face first into protectionist laws literally written by telecom giants. People then stand around with a dumb look on their face, wondering why US broadband is aggressively mediocre and expensive. The answer? Corruption and regulatory capture.

Filed Under: ammon, broadband, competition, fcc, idaho, municipal broadband, open access

Small Idaho City Shows The Benefits Of Open Access Broadband Networks

from the build-it-and-they-will-come dept

In 2009, the FCC funded a Harvard study that concluded (pdf) that open access broadband networks (letting multiple ISPs come in and compete over a central, core network) resulted in lower broadband prices and better service. Of course when the FCC released its flimsy, politically timid "National Broadband Plan" back in 2010, this realization (not to mention an honest accounting of the sector's limited competition) was nowhere to be found. Both parties ignored the data and instead doubled down on our existing national telecom policy plan: letting AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast do pretty much whatever they'd like.

Since then, "open access" has become somewhat of a dirty word in telecom, and even companies like Google Fiber -- which originally promised to adhere to the concept on its own network before quietly backpedaling -- are eager to pretend the idea doesn't exist.

The town of Ammon, Idaho showcases precisely why telecom giants are so worried. The town built a locally owned 30 mile fiber network, then invited ISPs to come in and compete under an open access model. Locals currently have four ISPs to chose from (with more presumably coming), and users can switch ISPs in a matter of seconds. This week, Ammon Mayor Sean Coletti took to Twitter to highlight the benefits of this competition, noting that one of the ISPs using the network was offering 15 Mbps broadband for as little as $1.88 a month:

Granted there's a catch here (isn't there always?). That $2 doesn't include a tax assessment of $10 to $15 (levied separately), plus a $16.50 utility fee intended to help pay off the bonds used to fund the project. Still, the service (especially faster speeds) winds up being dramatically cheaper than most local ISPs, especially telcos still charging an arm and a leg for sluggish DSL. It's also hard to quantify the value of user control. Unlike most markets (where users only have the choice of one ISP), Ammon residents can just quickly switch to a different ISP should their current one offer terrible customer service, or engage in privacy or net neutrality violations (both arguably symptoms of limited competition).

A video from a few years ago by the Institute for Local Self Reliance took a closer look at Ammon's network, and featured several ISPs that were happy to have access to cheaper fiber. They were also more than happy to compete because, as one small ISP executive put it, "it keeps us on top of the game so we can continue to provide a superior product and no one gets lackadaisical":

It shouldn't be particularly hard to see why natural monopolies like Comcast, who've been allowed to apathetically nickel and dime American consumers for years, are terrified of such proposals. It's largely because it raises the question: what if we treated broadband more like an essential utility? One where locally-owned and operated networks had a direct, financial interest in the contentment of the public? One where private ISPs partner with locals in layers of competition? That's not to say community broadband and open access are the solution for every market. But after decades of doubling down on bad ideas and worse outcomes in US telecom, it's an idea that's worth at least paying attention to.

Filed Under: ammon, broadband, competition, idaho, municipal broadband, open access, sean coletti, unbundling
Companies: ammon fiber

Open Access Idaho Broadband Network Lets Customers Switch To A New ISP In Seconds

from the what-competition-actually-looks-like dept

In 2009, the FCC funded a Harvard study that concluded (pdf) that open access policies (letting multiple ISPs come in and compete over a central, core network) resulted in lower broadband prices and better service. Of course when the FCC released its flimsy, politically timid "National Broadband Plan" back in 2010, this realization (not to mention an honest accounting of the sector's limited competition) was nowhere to be found. Since then, "open access" has become somewhat of a dirty word in telecom, and even companies like Google Fiber -- which originally promised to adhere to the concept on its own network before quietly backpedaling -- are eager to pretend the idea doesn't exist.

That's not the case for Ammon, Idaho however, where a small municipal broadband ISP is building a core broadband network that's not only embracing open access, but is developing tools that will let customers easily switch between ISPs in seconds. Even different customers in the same home can select different ISPs depending on their needs:

"Residents will get a gateway provided by the city. When they hook it up and try to surf the Web, they will be taken to the portal where they can select an ISP—very much like using the Internet in a hotel. From that point, residents will scan the available Internet offers, purchase one, and get hooked up immediately. They could even buy two different Internet services, which might be useful for a family where a parent works at home and wants a single broadband line for a home office and a second broadband service for the rest of the home."

While only a 12 home trial at the moment, the city of Ammon is beginning expansion to 200 homes, with plans to reach all 4,500 homes and apartment buildings in time. Like most municipal broadband networks, the Ammon network was forged in the wake of resident annoyance at apathetic area incumbents CenturyLink and Cable One. Also like most municipal broadband communities, Ammon is relatively conservative, once again putting to bed the useful ISP-backed myth that municipal broadband is a partisan, political issue:

"Ammon is "a very conservative community," so creating a fiber network instead of relying solely on the private sector is not something city officials were about to do lightly, Mayor Dana Kirkham said in the video. But city officials soon figured out that they could do the initial project themselves for just $22,000 and that they could also bring Internet access to government buildings and businesses, improving the city's ability to compete in a high-tech world in a fiscally responsible manner."

Again though, open access in most areas of the country is treated like the bubonic plague. Why? Most large scale open access proposals often involve some form of local public/private partnership to ensure even coverage of what's becoming a necessary utility to lower ROI areas. The end result is any ISP lobbyists' worst nightmare: an informed, motivated public with the backing of local governments working together to improve broadband competition, instead of the current paradigm of regulatory capture resulting in government ignoring the public to maintain the duopoly status quo.

And while Ammon's approach is unlikely to be adopted on any scale here in the States, it's an interesting look at what could have been if the country wasn't quite so beholden to telecom industry campaign contributions.

Filed Under: ammon, broadband, competition, fcc, idaho, isps, line sharing, municipal broadband, open access